Backtobanks

I was looking at it as the Red Sox saving $2 million plus making room for youngsters to play. Obviously nobody wants the 2014 version of Jackson, but he might be a someone who might benefit from a change of scenery. Also, the Cubs would be taking on some risk with a 34 year old coming off back surgery.

With the signing of Castillo, the Red Sox have OFs Cespedes, Betts, Bradley, Craig, Castillo, and Victorino all signed through next year (along with Napoli and Ortiz as 1B/DH). I wonder if they would take Jackson + cash for Victorino. Victorino is owed $13 million for next year, while Jackson is owed $11 million for 2015 and 2016. Hell, I'd be willing to throw in the $11 million for 2016 just to get rid of Jackson. The Red Sox would save $2 million next year and have Jackson for nothing in 2016, while we would add a veteran presence who can play any OF position.

They shouldn't sign him for next year because they aren't going to be good until next year? This is why I don't listen to sports radio. Why is it that you don't read well, though? (being a smart ass, not a jerk, but i don't want to use a smiley to convey that because only the 60 year olds like b2b use those here) You really need to work on your obsessive tendencies.

From MLBTR: Inside The Zona says the D’Backs could explore a Trevor Cahill trade. The article mentioned a possible August waiver deal for basically salary relief ($2 million/$12.2 million/$300,000 buyout) for a 26 year old who has had some ML success. If they're willing to eat some of the money and the asking price in trade is reasonable, he might be a decent option.

The funny thing is that the playoff spot and a 4-year reign in the central would be based on the rotation if you're looking at a track record of ML success rather than potential. If you actually read what we've been arguing about, no one is suggesting not adding elite pitching. We're arguing different ways to accomplish it. I've read what all of you have been arguing about, I just thought it would be "interesting" if our rotation was the reason for contention after all of the discussion about our record-setting offensive potential.

The funny thing is that the playoff spot and a 4-year reign in the central would be based on the rotation if you're looking at a track record of ML success rather than potential. YES THAT IS THE FUNNY THING amitheonlyonewhodoesntseethefunnything? Okay, maybe I should have used the word "interesting" rather than "funny" since most of you have espoused the philosophy of monster offense and "meh pitching".

The funny thing is that the playoff spot and a 4-year reign in the central would be based on the rotation if you're looking at a track record of ML success rather than potential.

which means he's valued highly and could likely net you a good return that fills other needs. It also means he's the opposite of surplus value; he's the proven commodity and yet you want to move him as if the Cubs can just plug in someone who is a lock to outproduce him at SS. The surplus value is the relative glut of MI prospects. Russell's floor is Castro. No, it's not. Russell may be one of the best prospects in baseball, but he's still a prospect. When he proves himself at the ML level, then we can talk about trading our young, all-star caliber SS.

Great move getting a guy with a pedigree for 2 low minor prospects.

you're thinking of back2banks I've complimented the FO when they have made a good move. Unlike many posters, I don't throw around compliments just because it's "our" FO making the move. Something like making a good deal to get Turner or Hamels would be worthy of a compliment.

At least nobody is over-hyping his arrival. LOL

My point was more about timing. We need to start adding to the rotation, so that when we are at that point of being ready to contend (2016?) it might be easier to acquire the one starter we need rather than two. Waiting until "we're ready" runs into problems with availability, trade partners, and/or outbidding other teams.

I'm not surprised, but I hate that they are already pre-excusing 2015 failure. They can add pitching over the next 18-24 months without starting to add pitching in months 18-24. My guess/hope is they add a "big name" FA pitcher (Lester, Scherzer, etc), a reclamation-type FA (Masterson, McCarthy, etc), and another young, cost-controlled SP via trade, this offseason. But then again I'm an optimist. However, there is simply so much room in the budget to think they won't be bolstering pitching starting this offseason. Yeah, they have to start filling the holes in the rotation for the future. When the time comes, you can't expect to fill in 2-3 starters all at once.

If you build a great offense, you can patch a staff together and win it all. Obviously, you would prefer to be awesome on both sides of the ball. btw - I think we're going to be "too young" next year. While I love the potential of our guys, some are going to struggle to adapt to the majors. I'm enormously excited about next year to see these guys against major league pitching. I think we will be much, much better next year. I'm still in favor of spending our available cash on Maeda and another rotation upgrade just in case we get lucky with how fast they adapt. But I think it will be 2016 when we become awesome. I think we agree that you need some kind of balance between offense and pitching to win it all. I think the converse of your statement (in bold) is also true - If you build a great pitching staff, you can patch together an offense and win it all. My point is that it looks like we're headed in the direction of a great offense, but we need more than a little help to patch together a decent enough rotation to have a chance. I agree that next year might be a struggle for the young players to adapt to ML pitching, but it certainly will be more enjoyable watching them than watching place holders.

Obviously, you need both offense and pitching to get to the World Series. When one is totally out of balance with the other a lot could depend on the stadium. Obviously, Boston isn't going to lead the league in ERA (or probably any other pitching stat), so you have to build a team based on offense. That being said, you do play half your schedule away from Fenway and it helps to have starters like Lester, Lackey, and Bucholz in 2013 or Schilling, Martinez, Wakefield, Arroyo, and Lowe in 2004. We seem to be well on our way to having a solid offense, but we can't be serious with Arrieta, Wood, and 3-4 question marks.

okay... 1) Hoyer saying that they need to add pitching to the system is referring to the current imbalance between position prospects and pitching prospects. It impacts the major league team eventually, but only downstream. 2) A lack of impact pitching in the current farm system does not in any form or fashion prevent the team from contending at the major league level. 3) The perception of a lack of pitching is more dire than the actual state of pitching in the system. The Cubs have already placed Hendricks and Wada into the rotation (Wada does technically count as a MLB prospect as he had never pitched there before). Corey Black, Pierce Johnson, CJ Edwards are all at AA. 4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers. 5) The Cubs will have money to spend and no need to spend it on the position players or bullpen. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they will use money to buy some pitching help for the major league team. 6) In Arrieta, the Cubs may very well have already found the "ace" for the team. In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter. 50% of the game is scoring runs and 50% of the game is preventing them. Preventing runs breaks down into pitching and defense. I've seen a variety of estimates of the importance of those two factors, but let's be generous and say that pitching is 75% of preventing runs. Your "bottom line" is worth about 37.5% of winning. At best. Pitchers are also much more volatile and a significantly worse investment than hitters. Not only is there the injury risk, but performance fluctuates much more for pitchers than hitters for a variety of reasons. As a result, it is a much, much better idea to build a great offensive and defensive team. Then you can plug in league average pitching and be a very good team. I agree with some of what you're saying, but I disagree with pitching being only 37.5% of winning. If you look at how many top teams over the years were loaded with pitching and got by with mediocre (at best) offenses. The overloaded offensive teams usually got shut down by pitching in a playoff situation. The reason that decent (or better) pitchers are overpaid is because they are the most valuable asset to a team. There are 9 defensive players, 9 offensive players, and only one pitcher at any time in the game. At the deadline, most contending teams are looking for more pitching (starter, loogy, closer, etc.). I hope you're right about spending some money to buy some pitching for the ML team. Hendricks and Wada have looked good so far, but it has a very small sample. Doubront and Straily are possibilities, but certainly not sure things. As for the rotation being fixed this winter, I posted in the trade deadline thread that the Reds were willing to listen to offers for Latos. Put a package together for Latos, sign a top starter, and suddenly you have a quality rotation to go along with the offense that we're hoping our prospects can provide.

Welcome. And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control. On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap. Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap. Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months. So you're telling me that TOR pitchers are more valuable than scrap heap outfielders?! Can you explain, in detail, how you came to this conclusion? Yeah, Maholm, Feldman, Hammel, Dempster, etc. were all TOR pitchers when traded. We still have hopes that Hoyerstein can find a taker for our ace Edwin Jackson.

Welcome. And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control. On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap. Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap. Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months. No, you don't see teams overpaying for hitting because the cost of hitters on the level of Price and Samardzija and Lester aren't available at all because hitting is more valuable. Here's a list of the best hitters who could be free agents this year (like Lester will be). You tell me which ones might be anywhere close to as valuable as Lester List according to Cot's First Basemen Billy Butler * Adam Dunn Michael Cuddyer Victor Martinez Second Basemen Ben Zobrist * Shortstops J.J. Hardy Jed Lowrie Hanley Ramirez Third Basemen Chase Headley Casey McGehee Aramis Ramirez * Pablo Sandoval Catchers Russell Martin Outfielders Melky Cabrera Nelson Cruz Michael Cuddyer Nick Markakis * Colby Rasmus Alex Rios * Josh Willingham I look at that list and see plenty of guys who can make teams better, but very few who would command much of a trade return. The best hitters are locked up to long term deals and will not be traded except probably for other bats The best hitters are locked into long term contracts because they are less likely to suffer a serious injury over a long term contract.

Welcome. And, yeah, in neither case did they really have to give up all that much to add that ace, especially in Price's case with an extra year of control. On the other hand, "the boy genius" did manage to get quite a haul for his pitchers, one of which he basically picked up off the scrap heap. Oh and then there's that guy pitching like a top 10 pitcher in baseball that they basically got off the scrap heap for another guy they got off the scrap heap. Thanks for agreeing that pitching is the bottom line. The reason the Cubs got quite a haul for their pitchers is that many teams are willing to overpay for pitching. You don't see many teams overpaying for some scrap-heap OF that had a few good months.

Let's not resort to the argument from authority. It can go both ways. Some pretty smart teams acquired pitching at the deadline this year. Some pretty smart GMs sold pitching. It's a fallacious argument at best. The "smart teams" that acquired pitching at the deadline were the teams that are the teams now now favored to go deep into the playoffs or to win the WS. The "smart GMs" that sold pitching realized that they had no chance of winning, so it was best to cash in the most valuable asset they had (pitching). Are you airquoting Friedman and Cherington as "smart GMs"? Quick, what's your take on Ruben Amaro Jr? Friedman, Cherington, and Hoyerstein are all smart GMs who understood that they had no chance of winning, so it was best to trade the asset most teams were looking for - pitching.

Let's not resort to the argument from authority. It can go both ways. Some pretty smart teams acquired pitching at the deadline this year. Some pretty smart GMs sold pitching. It's a fallacious argument at best. The "smart teams" that acquired pitching at the deadline were the teams that are the teams now now favored to go deep into the playoffs or to win the WS. The "smart GMs" that sold pitching realized that they had no chance of winning, so it was best to cash in the most valuable asset they had (pitching).

What's the rush, Hoyer was quoted in today's Tribune that he knows they need to add pitching throughout the system and that's their goal in the next 18-24 months. So everyone just calm down and wait until 2017 (or until the next quote on when we might actually contend). I understand I'm simply wasting time here, but you do understand that adding pitching the the system over the next 18-24 months has little to nothing to do with when we will contend, right? Well unless we add some serious pitching to the ML rotation, we certainly won't be contending soon. Since the "Plan" seems to be to wait until our players get enough time in the minors to fully develop and we're not going to spend big money until we're "close". Even if most of our offensive prospects click, we still are woefully lacking in pitching and pitching prospects. The bottom line is that pitching is what wins for the most part as evidenced by all of the biggest names dealt at the deadline (and before).

What's the rush, Hoyer was quoted in today's Tribune that he knows they need to add pitching throughout the system and that's their goal in the next 18-24 months. So everyone just calm down and wait until 2017 (or until the next quote on when we might actually contend).

From MLBTR:Reds Dangling Mat Latos In Trades By Steve Adams [July 31, 2014 at 1:01pm CDT] Coming off a dreadful losing streak, the Reds have dangled right-hander Mat Latos in trades, according to ESPN’s Jayson Stark (on Twitter). The 26-year-old Latos would represent a huge impact on the starting pitching market. He’s posted a 3.31 ERA with 5.6 K/9, 1.9 BB/9 and a 32.5 percent ground-ball rate in 55 1/3 innings this season since being activated from the DL. While those strikeout and ground-ball rates are down, Latos has been among the NL’s best young starters over the past several seasons. He owns a a 3.27 ERA with 8.2 K/9 and 2.6 BB/9 in 850 2/3 innings dating back to 2010. I wonder what kind of package it would take for us to get Latos.

Which is a nice indicator that the Cubs will actually try in 2015. Not trading Schierholtz last year didn't indicate much.